Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd
High Court
23 Sep 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
23 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, along with pending application.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 549/2016, CM APPL.27834/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Rao, Jr. Standing Counsel. with Mr. Puneet Rao, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
M/S FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R
23.09.2016
This revenue’s appeal is highly belated - by 1121 days. There is hardly any explanation for the delay in the application for condonation of delay. The revenue urges that delay ought to be condoned given the fact that the appeal was initially filed but was lying under objections and when returned it faced some difficulties on account of change and reorganisation of panel.
This Court is of the opinion that the explanation is unconvincing and cannot be called “sufficient cause” as to result in condonation of the inordinate delay.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, along with pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016/vikas/
DEEPA SHARMA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue